The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a suit to be filed by a duly authorized person and the need for sufficient evidence to support a claim for damages.

J.S. Narang, J. - The appellants had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,07,450/- against Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi as damages caused to the property of the appellants. It is averred that a goods train of the defendants fully loaded with heavy steel blooms and steel rods etc. had rammed into the transformers of the appellants lying in the yard of the 220 KVS Station Jamalpur Awana rendering the said transformers totally useless. It is further alleged that the accident was caused due to the careless and negligent and illegal act of the employees of the defendant. The transformers were lying on the siding track which was the exclusive property and jurisdiction of the appellants.

2. The defendant-respondent had taken the plea that the suit had not been filed through a duly authorised person and that the siding track was not meant for the exclusive use of the appellant-plaintiff. It has been further stated that on 27.9.1977, Train No. D-22 Down was engaged in shunting in the siding at Dhandari Kalan. Empty stock which ought to have been removed from the siding by way of placement of one of the loaded KC in the siding which had not been done. The empty stock was released by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (one of the appellant-plaintiff). In the process of shunting, the 26th vehicle from the engine had broken and portion of the load in the rear had started rolling toward the premises of the appellants. The guard and Pointman concerned turned the breaks but were not successful. The load rolled for a distance of about 1400 meters and hit against five empty KCS which were lying outside the inter-charge gate. As such, this occurrence is one of those accidents which was beyond the control of any one. Thus, no suit for recovery of damages could be filed against the defendant-respondent. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed. The trial Court returned a categoric finding so far as claim of damages is concerned, that the appellants had not been able to bring on record any cogent evidence on the basis of which the claim made by the appellant-plaintiffs could be assessed. Apart from this, no evidence had been brought on the file that the transformers after the said accident had totally become useless and had become non-functional. It has also not been substantiated as to whether the transformers which were damaged on account of the un-controlable accident, had been got repaired or not. In the absence of any evidence, the trial Court derived at a correct finding that in the absence of any evidence, no damages could be awarded. The issue was therefore, correctly decided.

3. The defendant-respondent had categorically pleaded that the suit had not been filed through the duly authorised person. From the title of the suit, the Punjab State Electricity Board is shown to have acted/filed the suit through its Chairman. So far as Bhakra Beas Management Board is concerned, the suit is shown to be filed through the Executive Engineer. In fact the plaint has been signed and verified by the Executive Engineer and the paragraph with regard to filing of the suit through the Executive Engineer being duly authorised or entitled to under the provisions of the statute/rules is missing. The perusal of the office order No. 3098/PSEB dated 1.12.1967 shows that regulation 8-A had been incorporated authorising the persons to be the controlling officers for the purpose instituting, defending, or coming in as intervener in the suit which may have to be filed by the Board or which may have to be defended by the Board in respect of its employee(s). The provision further provides pecuniary limit vis. the authority conferred upon such officers. It shall be apposite to reproduce regulation 8-A as under :-

"8-A. Regulation 8-A.

(a) The following officers will act as Controlling Officers to authorise (i) the institution of a suit on behalf of the Board (ii) the defence of any threatened suit to which the B